AR Pistol California legal?

[gurshanmalhi]

I recently acquired an AR pistol that was originally transferred to me as a California single-shot exempt (SSE) pistol. It has since been converted by replacing the upper with a semi-automatic upper, installing a fixed-magazine system, and adding a pistol brace.

My question is: how much of a legal gray area is this in California? If a law enforcement officer saw it, would they be likely to immediately consider it an unregistered short barreled rifle (SBR), or would it generally be recognized as an AR pistol? Also, is it considered reasonably safe from a legal standpoint to take it to a public shooting range in its current configuration?

 

[M_N04H]

I recently acquired an AR pistol that was originally transferred to me as a California single-shot exempt (SSE) pistol. It has since been converted by replacing the upper with a semi-automatic upper, installing a fixed-magazine system, and adding a pistol brace.

My question is: how much of a legal gray area is this in California? If a law enforcement officer saw it, would they be likely to immediately consider it an unregistered short barreled rifle (SBR), or would it generally be recognized as an AR pistol? Also, is it considered reasonably safe from a legal standpoint to take it to a public shooting range in its current configuration?

I'll answer your final question because it's the only one I can answer confidently. It'll depend on the range. Call ahead of time. Some don't care about the AR pistol at all, bring it in. Some only care about it being pistol caliber or not; depending on what these ranges allow, they'll let you shoot them. Some don't allow them AT ALL.

 

[miles888]

There is no California statute that expressly says an owner commits a crime merely by swapping the upper on a lawfully acquired SSE AR pistol.

When people call it a “gray area,” they don’t usually mean there’s a statute with unclear wording. They mean the DOJ’s interpretation has not been definitively tested and adopted by the courts.

So the DOJ is basically just successfully scaring otherwise free and grown adults into self-disarmament.

The DOJ grants law enforcement releases on converted AR pistols. They send a letter from Rob Bonta’s desk with his signature saying it’s legal to own and you’re the lawful and non-prohibited owner. If it was a grey area like people claim they would keep the guns and destroy them on the basis it “may be a dangerous handgun.”

They can’t, because it’s not, and “may be” isn’t a law. It’s a scare tactic.

 

[drinktothat421]

I recently acquired an AR pistol that was originally transferred to me as a California single-shot exempt (SSE) pistol. It has since been converted by replacing the upper with a semi-automatic upper, installing a fixed-magazine system, and adding a pistol brace.

My question is: how much of a legal gray area is this in California? If a law enforcement officer saw it, would they be likely to immediately consider it an unregistered short barreled rifle (SBR), or would it generally be recognized as an AR pistol? Also, is it considered reasonably safe from a legal standpoint to take it to a public shooting range in its current configuration?

Legal is up for the courts to decide. As a range toy. Youll probably never run into issues. If for whatever reason law enforcment need to see or inspect it, it up to them on how its handled. They might not know anything and seize/ arrest, they might know its a pistol and not a rifle, or not even care. Honestly idk what the charges could be couldnt be youd have to battle in court. Like when bullet buttons first came out some people got there weapons seized. A range might not want the excessive noise. Or maybe they get too many legal issues with what gets used on there range or who show up to there range and they get more stricked.

 

[gurshanmalhi]

There is no California statute that expressly says an owner commits a crime merely by swapping the upper on a lawfully acquired SSE AR pistol.

When people call it a “gray area,” they don’t usually mean there’s a statute with unclear wording. They mean the DOJ’s interpretation has not been definitively tested and adopted by the courts.

So the DOJ is basically just successfully scaring otherwise free and grown adults into self-disarmament.

The DOJ grants law enforcement releases on converted AR pistols. They send a letter from Rob Bonta’s desk with his signature saying it’s legal to own and you’re the lawful and non-prohibited owner. If it was a grey area like people claim they would keep the guns and destroy them on the basis it “may be a dangerous handgun.”

They can’t, because it’s not, and “may be” isn’t a law. It’s a scare tactic.

I see

 

[rackit711]

The penal codes use the word “may” instead of more definitive language. It’s on purpose. It’s designed to discourage certain actions (ha!).

So far, no one has been prosecuted AFAIK.

 

[Cubanito_Versace]

I have a legally acquired, semi automatic AR pistol. I’ve been to Mike’s gun range in Yorba Linda and another one in San Bernardino and both of them asked for paperwork to confirm that it was registered a semi automatic. They were pretty anal about it but everywhere else I’ve never had an issue.

 

[RickD427]

There is no California statute that expressly says an owner commits a crime merely by swapping the upper on a lawfully acquired SSE AR pistol.

When people call it a “gray area,” they don’t usually mean there’s a statute with unclear wording. They mean the DOJ’s interpretation has not been definitively tested and adopted by the courts.

So the DOJ is basically just successfully scaring otherwise free and grown adults into self-disarmament.

The DOJ grants law enforcement releases on converted AR pistols. They send a letter from Rob Bonta’s desk with his signature saying it’s legal to own and you’re the lawful and non-prohibited owner. If it was a grey area like people claim they would keep the guns and destroy them on the basis it “may be a dangerous handgun.”

They can’t, because it’s not, and “may be” isn’t a law. It’s a scare tactic.

Miles, You've got a pretty good summary here, but there's more to the story.

Statutes exist to define what the law is. Statutes have to go through the entire legislative process in order to become law. Regulations are adopted by the agencies that enforce statutes. They are for the purpose of interpreting the content of statute(s). They have to go through an abbreviated review process before the regulation goes into effect.

Because of this, there is a well worn path where agencies are tempted to use the regulation path to expand the content of a statute.

There is a clear example of DOJ doing this in the case of Bullet Button Assault Rifles. The statutes define "Assault Weapons." They make no distinction between BBRAWs and RAWs. The plain text of the Assault Weapon statute is not violated if a person removes the bullet button from an RAW an installs a regular magazine release in its place. The weapon does not become any "Assaultier" under the statute. But DOJ has sought to prevent the conversion of BBRAWs into regular RAWs through regulation (see 11CCR5477). Agencies cannot create new law through regulation, but what DOJ did in this case was to hold that removing the bullet button created a "new" weapon, and one that was not registered, thus making the possessor liable to prosecution under PC 30605.

DOJ has not yet created a similar regulation for the conversion of SSE firearms into semi-auto, But they have published guidance taking the same position regarding SSE conversions. Please see the third bulleted item in the red highlighted section of their web-page: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search

It is important to note the weasel-wording in the use of "may" in their admonition concerning the manufacture of unsafe handguns. It's there because the position is untested in court, and to the best of my knowledge, has not been run through the review process required by California's Administrative Procedures Act.

 

[duc748bip]

I seen them at public outdoor range all the time. Some indoor range disallow it because they associate shooter with AR pistol as the type of people that are more likely to shoot and damage range equipment. The one's that do allow large format pistol don't really care about the brace.

 

[cptlgnz]

I have a legally acquired, semi automatic AR pistol. I’ve been to Mike’s gun range in Yorba Linda and another one in San Bernardino and both of them asked for paperwork to confirm that it was registered a semi automatic. They were pretty anal about it but everywhere else I’ve never had an issue.

Sheesh that’s crazy.

 

[AA2323]

I have a legally acquired, semi automatic AR pistol. I’ve been to Mike’s gun range in Yorba Linda and another one in San Bernardino and both of them asked for paperwork to confirm that it was registered a semi automatic. They were pretty anal about it but everywhere else I’ve never had an issue.

The 4 ranges I frequent in SoCal have no issues with said AR Pistols. Their stance is "our job is to ensure safe use of firearms, not interpretation of specific laws".

If any range is demanding to "see your papers" then that would be the last time I would go to that range out of principle.

 

[AA2323]

Miles, You've got a pretty good summary here, but there's more to the story.

Statutes exist to define what the law is. Statutes have to go through the entire legislative process in order to become law. Regulations are adopted by the agencies that enforce statutes. They are for the purpose of interpreting the content of statute(s). They have to go through an abbreviated review process before the regulation goes into effect.

Because of this, there is a well worn path where agencies are tempted to use the regulation path to expand the content of a statute.

There is a clear example of DOJ doing this in the case of Bullet Button Assault Rifles. The statutes define "Assault Weapons." They make no distinction between BBRAWs and RAWs. The plain text of the Assault Weapon statute is not violated if a person removes the bullet button from an RAW an installs a regular magazine release in its place. The weapon does not become any "Assaultier" under the statute. But DOJ has sought to prevent the conversion of BBRAWs into regular RAWs through regulation (see 11CCR5477). Agencies cannot create new law through regulation, but what DOJ did in this case was to hold that removing the bullet button created a "new" weapon, and one that was not registered, thus making the possessor liable to prosecution under PC 30605.

DOJ has not yet created a similar regulation for the conversion of SSE firearms into semi-auto, But they have published guidance taking the same position regarding SSE conversions. Please see the third bulleted item in the red highlighted section of their web-page: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search

It is important to note the weasel-wording in the use of "may" in their admonition concerning the manufacture of unsafe handguns. It's there because the position is untested in court, and to the best of my knowledge, has not been run through the review process required by California's Administrative Procedures Act.

IMO the key wording as you noted is "may" but also the area in bold:
"Aftermarket changes or modifications made to certain single shot pistols (i.e. changing upper receivers, connecting gas tubes) may be considered manufacturing these pistols into assault weapons. See California Penal Code section 30515, subdivision (a)(1), for a list of assault weapon characteristics."

It can be argued that converting an SSE AR Pistol to semi auto would violate the "CA AW" ban only if the key characteristics are violated, namely: fixed magazine, no front vertical grip, etc. So

 

[treelogger]

It can be argued that converting an SSE AR Pistol to semi auto would violate the "CA AW" ban only if the key characteristics are violated, namely: ...

You are correct on an AR pistol violating the CA AWB, which most AR pistols in circulation do not.

But there is also the roster to consider. The roster is the list of "unsafe" handguns, where "unsafe" is defined as: has not gone through safety testing. And manufacturing an unsafe handgun is prohibited. Single shots are exempt from the roster. If someone takes something that is a single shot and therefore not an "unsafe handgun" (as that term is defined in the law), and then makes it semi-auto and therefore no longer exempt and therefore an "unsafe handgun", it stands to reason that they have just manufactured that unsafe handgun. Here the phrase "stands to reason" means: obvious enough that a judge might easily agree with it.

The problem with this argument (which is very similar to the problem of the BBRAW conversion by removing the bullet button) is that the DoJ uses an interpretation of the term "manufacturing" that is not unambiguous. Their stance is: Before there was no unsafe semi-auto handgun, now there is one, therefore someone must have manufactured it. The act of "manufacturing" is if someone creates a tangible object of a specific class, which did not exist before. Changing the class of an object constitutes manufacturing, even if the object (the lower receiver) is not physically modified in the process. That definition may fly in court, or it may not. There is another definition of manufacturing, which is more along the lines of what a machinist or gunsmith would think: Take an object (like a chunk of aluminum), and change its dimensions and configuration (for example by milling, welding and drilling), until it functionally becomes a different object. Under that definition of manufacturing, an AR pistol is not manufactured when it gets turned from single-shot to semi-auto, and instead reconfigured with different accessories (upper). That definition of manufacturing may fly in court, or it may not. I have highlighted in bold italics the direction the opinion might go which would land the person in jail.

Now, who gets to decide how the word "manufacture" is defined? The law fails to do so, meaning we're leaving that task to a judge (or multiple if the case goes to appeal). Because the meaning of the words in the law is ultimately a question of law, not of fact, so judges as the trier or law get to decide it. Now, if someone knows all the judges in their jurisdiction, and can predict well enough how they would decide if you were arrested with the AR pistol, the decision becomes easy. In most places and for most people, that's unlikely, leaving a risk of prosecution. I happen to know all the judges who do criminal trials in my county (I live in a small county and am involved in legal shenanigans). Therefore I don't have an AR pistol, nor do I remove the bullet button on my BBRAWs. YMMV.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

I have nothing illegal in my car, officer. Do you have a warrant to search my car?

 

[rackit711]

I agree
“Manufacture”. I used to think I knew what that meant. The only definition that matters for us is the judge’s interpretation.

I don’t want to be the first case. The DOJ will turn your life upside down and then pressure you to settle. Facing time and a long drawn out case, which the government will prefer to bleed you dry, most people will settle. But, I haven’t seen or heard of any cases. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. The govt may not want this decided. They love it being quasi ambiguous scary sounding.

 

[Blade]

I’ve owned AR pistols before (drosd as a handgun) and the only thing that brought me joy other than building it out, is that it was aesthetically pleasing. The headache that came with it when taking it out was not worth it imo. Luckily my local range didn’t care, and I knew if I reached destination A to B I was fine. With that being said when I build out my next AR it’s gonna be 14.5 p&w. I can’t justify paying another premium for something that goes bang like all the other things that go bang. Also wasn’t a fan of pistol braces or limited rail space.

 

[RickD427]

You are correct on an AR pistol violating the CA AWB, which most AR pistols in circulation do not.

But there is also the roster to consider. The roster is the list of "unsafe" handguns, where "unsafe" is defined as: has not gone through safety testing. And manufacturing an unsafe handgun is prohibited. Single shots are exempt from the roster. If someone takes something that is a single shot and therefore not an "unsafe handgun" (as that term is defined in the law), and then makes it semi-auto and therefore no longer exempt and therefore an "unsafe handgun", it stands to reason that they have just manufactured that unsafe handgun. Here the phrase "stands to reason" means: obvious enough that a judge might easily agree with it.

The problem with this argument (which is very similar to the problem of the BBRAW conversion by removing the bullet button) is that the DoJ uses an interpretation of the term "manufacturing" that is not unambiguous. Their stance is: Before there was no unsafe semi-auto handgun, now there is one, therefore someone must have manufactured it. The act of "manufacturing" is if someone creates a tangible object of a specific class, which did not exist before. Changing the class of an object constitutes manufacturing, even if the object (the lower receiver) is not physically modified in the process. That definition may fly in court, or it may not. There is another definition of manufacturing, which is more along the lines of what a machinist or gunsmith would think: Take an object (like a chunk of aluminum), and change its dimensions and configuration (for example by milling, welding and drilling), until it functionally becomes a different object. Under that definition of manufacturing, an AR pistol is not manufactured when it gets turned from single-shot to semi-auto, and instead reconfigured with different accessories (upper). That definition of manufacturing may fly in court, or it may not. I have highlighted in bold italics the direction the opinion might go which would land the person in jail.

Now, who gets to decide how the word "manufacture" is defined? The law fails to do so, meaning we're leaving that task to a judge (or multiple if the case goes to appeal). Because the meaning of the words in the law is ultimately a question of law, not of fact, so judges as the trier or law get to decide it. Now, if someone knows all the judges in their jurisdiction, and can predict well enough how they would decide if you were arrested with the AR pistol, the decision becomes easy. In most places and for most people, that's unlikely, leaving a risk of prosecution. I happen to know all the judges who do criminal trials in my county (I live in a small county and am involved in legal shenanigans). Therefore I don't have an AR pistol, nor do I remove the bullet button on my BBRAWs. YMMV.

The question has already gone to court and it did fly. Please refer to the Fourth Circuit's decision in Broughman v. Carver. It's worth noting that, as a Fourth Circuit decision, Broughman is not binding precedent on California courts, but the reasoning of Broughman has already spread to California regulation, and was also adopted in the provisions of AB857.

 

[RickD427]

I have nothing illegal in my car, officer. Do you have a warrant to search my car?

Please note that a search warrant is hardly ever required to search a motor vehicle.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Please note that a search warrant is hardly ever required to search a motor vehicle.

Well as long as you don't/shouldn't have a vehicle reeking of alcohol/weed; have visible alcohol, drug/para; have active warrant/expired/sus lic.; have visible tools/equipment like you planning a heist or something; have visible weapons...like a normal everyday law-abiding citizen, I don't see what probable cause they would pull to search the vehicle.

Sit in your vehicle, fart a nasty one or many if you can, as the officer gets close, slowly open the window and let it out. When the officer asks what that smell is, slowly express a large smile while making eye contact.

 

[ar15robert]

Well as long as you don't/shouldn't have a vehicle reeking of alcohol/weed; have visible alcohol, drug/para; have active warrant/expired/sus lic.; have visible tools/equipment like you planning a heist or something; have visible weapons...like a normal everyday law-abiding citizen, I don't see what probable cause they would pull to search the vehicle.

Sit in your vehicle, fart a nasty one or many if you can, as the officer gets close, slowly open the window and let it out. When the officer asks what that smell is, slowly express a large smile while making eye contact.

They somehow just smell something illegal and search anyways. I know one who is a cop he tells me I can refuse a search and now they have to have strong probable cause etc etc.

Then on the other hand he tells me if he wants to search he’s gonna search as long as he can word his report properly